Summary: We upheld most of Mr X’s complaint about delay in sending an amended final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mr Y after an annual review. We also upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling. This is because the Council upheld the complaints, apologised, and implemented service improvements during its complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. We will not investigate part of the complaint about the quality of draft EHC Plans because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of a family member, Mr Y. Mr X said the Council:
1. failed to adhere to statutory timescales regarding Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review;
2. sent him inaccurate draft EHC Plans which resulted in Mr X having to correct information himself; and
3. delayed responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X said the matter caused frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2) and 34C(2), as amended)

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Consent

9. Mr Y has significant learning disabilities and has limited capacity to communicate. Consequently, I accepted Mr X as a suitable person to raise the complaint on his behalf.

Delay in finalising Mr Y’s EHC Plan following an annual review

10. We uphold Mr X’s complaint about delays in finalising Mr Y’s EHC Plan following the EHC annual review process.
11. In February 2025 the Council held an EHC annual review meeting. Following the meeting, the Council told Mr X it intended to amend Mr Y’s EHC Plan and sent him a draft EHC Plan in March 2025.
12. To comply with the statutory timescales the Council should have sent Mr Y’s final EHC Plan within 12 weeks of the EHC annual review meeting – by early May 2025. It did not send the final EHC Plan until mid-August 2025. This was a delay of 16 weeks.
13. In its complaint response, the Council upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay. It explained about improvements it was making to its services to prevent recurrence of the fault.
14. Consequently, although we uphold this complaint, we will not investigate further because the Council upheld the complaint, apologised, and implemented service improvements in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Inaccurate draft EHC Plans and amendments

15. Mr X complained he had to make multiple changes to Mr Y’s draft EHC Plans to ensure the EHC Plan accurately reflected Mr Y’s needs. In its complaint response, the Council said it had collaborated with Mr X to ensure Mr Y’s EHC Plan was accurate and had done so under the understanding he was happy to engage in the process.
16. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Although Mr X feels the draft EHC Plans were inaccurate, the Council worked collaboratively to ensure the final EHC Plan reflected Mr Y’s needs. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Poor complaints handling

17. We uphold Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints handling. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the delay in responding to his stage one complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
18. Consequently, although we uphold this complaint, we will not investigate further because the Council upheld the complaint and apologised in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We upheld most of Mr X’s complaint because the Council upheld the complaint and remedied the injustice caused during its complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. We will not investigate part of the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman